Bonacic and campaign finance reform

Posted 8/21/12

In a debate between Republican New York State Sen. John Bonacic and Democratic challenger Pramilla Malick sponsored by The Times-Herald Record on October 13, Malick expressed the view that companies …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Bonacic and campaign finance reform

Posted

In a debate between Republican New York State Sen. John Bonacic and Democratic challenger Pramilla Malick sponsored by The Times-Herald Record on October 13, Malick expressed the view that companies that have business before the state should not be able to donate to the campaigns of elected state officials.

In his response regarding campaign finance reform, Bonacic said that there should be disclosure and transparency, but that to suggest that a politician can’t do what’s best for the people in determining public policy because he or she has accepted a donation, “I think that’s a fallacy.”

It is possible that some politicians can indeed accept money from a company and then ignore that fact when it comes to making decisions that will impact that company’s bottom line, but it is also clear that very often, politicians accept money from corporations and then vote in ways that help the company.

A majority of Americans disagree with Bonacic’s premise. A New York Times/CBS survey from June 2015 asked respondents, “How often do you think candidates who win public office promote policies that directly help the people and groups who donated money to their campaigns: most of the time, sometimes, rarely or never?” The majority, 55%, answered “Most of the Time.”

In the same survey, 84% of respondents said that money has too much influence in American political campaigns. And this is typical of other surveys regarding money in politics.

In the debate, Bonacic pointed out that the Citizen’s United Decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows wealthy individuals and companies and other groups to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, is the “law of the land.” Asked if he agreed with the decision he replied, “It’s the law of the land, whether I agree with it or not, I follow the law.”

True, it is the law of the land, but the law of the land can change and probably will. It seems likely that if Hillary Clinton is elected and becomes president, she will fill the current void on the court, and that she will do so with a person who is not likely to agree with the five-to-four Citizens United decision. Clinton will probably also have the opportunity to seat other justices in the future. So, when and if the matter comes before the court again, there’s a good possibility that the Citizens United will be overturned.

Further, another way the law of the land regarding political spending could be overturned is through a constitutional amendment, which has happened 27 times in the history of our country. A majority of the U.S. Senate has voted in favor of such an amendment, and voters in California in November will vote on whether to tell that state’s congressional delegation to work toward that goal.

Bonacic also nixed the idea of publically financed campaigns because the public has said it doesn’t want to pay for them. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that the cost of campaign financing in New York would be about $2 per person, and the center says, “Public campaign funding will pay for itself in the long run. It will save the state money by stopping special interests from using campaign cash to win themselves sweetheart deals like massive tax breaks that cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars every year.”

Further, 13 states and numerous municipalities have some form of public campaign funding, and the practice of funding political campaigns through the government budget is common in South America and Europe.

At one point in the discussion about campaign finance reform, essentially arguing that the status quo should be maintained, Bonacic argued that some people who run for elected office are poor, and if they aren’t allowed to accept money from wealthy sources, and they can’t afford to personally finance their campaigns, they won’t be able to mount an effective campaign.

But that argument points to a need for public campaign finance, not for maintaining the status quo. It also ignores the fact that some politicians with a people-centered message, such as former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, are raising enormous amounts of campaign cash through many small donations, rather than a small number of very large donations.

There are many issues at stake in the campaign for New York’s 42nd district, but we believe that campaign finance is one area in which Bonacic is behind the times. We hope that whichever candidate eventually prevails, he or she ultimately supports the overwhelming consensus of popular opinion, and works toward realizing the American people’s dream of a political system in which money no longer has such overwhelming influence in governance.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here